Sign in Subscribe

Mona Paulsen

Assistant Professor in International Economic Law, LSE Law School, London School of Economics & Political Science.

Why Section 338 Does Not Work in a GATT/WTO World: Lessons from Trade Law History

On July 21, 2026, President Trump exercised his authority under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (hereinafter Section 338) to impose the maximum amount of additional tariffs (fifty per cent) on Canadian cars, alcohol, and dairy, owing to his determination of Canada’s discriminatory treatment of US exports.

A law of many meanings: Exchange Actions under the GATT and IMF

Earlier this week, Simon Lester posted about the EU’s concerns with the undervaluation of the Chinese currency. He situated the recent demands for trade restrictions against a longstanding debate about the function of GATT Article XV:4.

What happens to all the frameworks, deals, and agreements negotiated by USTR since April 2, 2025?

With the Supreme Court ruling (6-3) that the President lacks inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA, the question is what happens to the trade/security deals (informal and formal agreements) negotiated in the shadow of the IEEPA tariffs? This post explains how the US has sought to

Is this the end of MFN as we know it? The EU submission on WTO reform and the meaning of development

With the release of the EU submission on WTO reform, it has become clear that the MFN principle’s central role within the WTO architecture is under challenge. As a keystone, it risks the entire bridge falling. Even if the foundations are retained but deemed outdated or unusable, and a

Is Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act a Fall-Back Option for Trump to Impose Tariffs?

Without IEEPA authority, as we have all discussed, where there is a will, there is a way. In all likelihood, this way involves the expanded use of other statutory authorities, such as Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. In

Bound Rates and the Stakes of the Cambodian Trade Deal

Far from being incoherent, the United States’ recent moves against trading partners suggest a unique restructuring of its economic structure, with executive-dominated foreign investments planned to drive much of its future economic growth. I’ll focus on the Agreement concluded with Cambodia for this post. Cambodia has not signed

International law aspects of the U.S.-Australia critical mineral and rare earth deal

Upon reading the US-AUS framework concerning the financing of rare earth mining. While there is very little to go on, I wanted to share some thoughts that connect current assessments with what we know about international investment law and existing institutional development. The Framework commits $1 billion in financing

Have the Japanese turned investment lemons into investment project lemonade?

Last week, the governments of the United States and Japan completed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to flesh out the details of a $550 billion pledge to invest in the United States made as part of the bargain to ‘buy down’ the tariffs imposed on Japanese traded products. For months,

What Trump's Trade Representative Got Wrong

Last week, USTR Jamieson Greer wrote an essay in The New York Times entitled, ‘Trump’s Trade Representative: Why We Remade the Global Order’. Simon has already done the heavy lifting by asking some necessary questions about this new order. Out of all the inaccuracies and “too early to tell”

Collective Economic Security

Collective Economic Security By Mona Paulsen (LSE Law) and Dan Ciuriak (C.D. Howe (Senior Fellow)) With a flurry of pomp and circumstance, the second Trump administration has reset United States trade with its trading partners. Based on U.S. laws that afford wide Executive discretion towards trade actions owing